Trump’s Proposed ‘Compact’ for Higher Ed Loses Support — Even on the Right

The Trump administration’s efforts to reform American higher education have long been contentious, but its latest maneuver has done more than just elicit sharp division: It has sparked a conservative backlash and been branded a modern-day “loyalty oath.”

The administration’s new “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” offers nine elite universities a deal they can’t easily refuse — federal funding in exchange for overhauling their values and policies — and in doing so, appears to have crossed a line even for those sympathetic to its agenda.

“We understand that the administration is trying to find ways to reform higher education, and there is no doubt that higher ed is in need of significant reform,” a fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which advises universities on academic freedom and free speech, Steve McGuire, tells the Sun. “But we have concerns about this particular proposal.”

Last week, the education secretary, Linda McMahon, and other White House officials presented nine prominent universities with an unusual proposition: commit to a list of institutional priorities and receive in return certain benefits, including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” 

The compact’s wide-ranging provisions were written, according to the administration, in alignment with the “priorities of the U.S. government.” Some requirements reinforce existing policies — like maintaining institutional neutrality, upholding civil rights laws, and requiring standardized test scores in applications. Others break new ground: like a 15 percent cap on international undergraduate students, mandates to eliminate grade inflation, and a five-year tuition freeze. 

The agreement also calls on the universities to root out anti-conservative bias, and to adopt definitions of gender according to “reproductive function and biological processes,” among other reforms that define the administration’s vision for higher education.

In exchange, signatory institutions receive “a competitive advantage” — priority for federal grants, invitations to White House events, and direct access to administration officials. Universities that elect “to forego federal benefits,” on the other hand, “are free to develop models and values other than” those listed on the compact. 

The memo’s nine recipients span geographic location, size, and funding sources. The schools include Vanderbilt University, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, the University of Southern California, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas, the University of Arizona, Brown University, and the University of Virginia. All face an October 20 deadline to accept or reject the administration’s offer.

The compact sparked predictable outrage from President Trump’s critics. A constitutional law scholar and the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, branded the memo “extortion, plain and simple” in an op-ed for the New York Times. Wesleyan University’s president, Michael Roth, denounced the agreement as “a loyalty oath.” Governor Gavin Newsom vowed to cut state funding to any university that signed the compact. 

More notable, however, is the concern emerging from conservative quarters that previously supported the effort or refrained from speaking out against the administration’s proposed higher education reforms.

“A lot of people who were maybe willing to tolerate bending the rules, if you will, with the administration’s deals, are either not supportive of the compact or are just staying silent,” Mr. McGuire tells the Sun. 

While his organization has long advocated for several reforms included in the new proposal, Mr. McGuire says the memo’s potential legal and constitutional problems — combined with its vague terms and unclear process — make it untenable. “It’s hard for me to see how a university could sign onto this document as it currently stands,” he says. 

The director of education policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Frederick Hess, offered a similar assessment. Describing the compact as having “admirable ends” but “profoundly problematic means,” he questioned its statutory basis and warned of unprecedented “bureaucratic intrusion.”

“It’s tempting to dismiss as self-serving hypocrisy the hand-wringing from higher ed leaders and college presidents who’ve pocketed billions in taxpayer funds and cheerfully embraced federal directives under presidents Obama and Biden,” Mr. Hess wrote. “But, in this instance, they have a point.” 

The question now is whether the nine universities will sign on despite their concerns, negotiate for changes, or reject the compact outright — and what consequences will follow any of those choices.

This piece was originally published by The New York Sun on October 9, 2025.